W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Updated Bobby

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:36:47 -0800
Message-ID: <3C21A31F.7070006@munat.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Thanks, Kynn, but you haven't answered my questions. I'm aware of the 
issues regarding backwards-compatibility. If you'll reread my original 
email, you'll see that I asked several specific questions. If you don't 
have the answers, no problem -- just say so, and I'll look elsewhere for 
them. But if you do know of specific problems -- not "compatibility 
issues" but specific accessibility problems caused by XHTML 1.1 -- could 
you please post them?

Note that most of the compatibility recommendations -- such as using <br 
/> instead of <br/> -- are perfectly valid XHTML, so they do not inhibit 
the use of valid XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 1.0 Strict.

You've said that we should not use the latest XHTML. The W3C is 
recommending that we do. I'd really like to know what evidence you can 
provide to support your point of view.


Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> At 10:24 AM -0800 12/19/01, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>> Also, with the exception of the xml:lang attribute, what is in 
>> "native" XHTML that isn't in "native" HTML? What part of "native" 
>> XHTML isn't understood by browsers/ATs?
> Native XHTML is the term I used for XHTML which is written without
> regard for the HTML backwards-compatibility suggestions given in
> the appendix of the XHTML 1.0 spec:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines
> XHTML 1.0 is not fully backwards-compatible with HTML or with HTML
> browsers, nor is it intended to be.  That is why the spec makes specific
> recommendations for compatibility -- such as writing <br/> as
> <br />.
> --Kynn
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 03:35:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC